get_type_at_position

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses zero-based coordinates (IMPORTANT) and required prior state. It also hints at the output structure. It does not mention error handling or return values when position is not on a type, but covers key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with only 4 sentences, using clear section headers (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT, Requires). Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter set (3 required integers) and no output schema, the description provides adequate output hints and a usage instruction. It could mention what happens if position is invalid, but overall it is sufficient for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting zero-based coordinates, which is critical for correct usage, and by stating the prerequisite for load_project.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves type information at a given position, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_field_at_position or get_method_at_position. The verb 'Get' and resource 'type information' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage instruction ('Position on a type reference or declaration') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.